A large automaker would love to have a popular product that operates by means of a technology that others do not have. That's precisely why Toyota has marketed the hybrid as it is, in order to differentiate itself from other automakers and to build its brand with consumers. If Toyota could score with EV's today and make them work, it would have already done it.
I disagree. GM spent over 1 billion dollars developing the EV1. IMO, it was one of their greatest achievements. They now found themselves somewhat in the position of the oncologist that discovered a pill that could cure cancer. Maybe not that dramatic but along the same lines. I do agree that one of the obstacles that EVs need to overcome is the perception as glorified golf carts. That is easily doable. We love performance and right now an EV can excede anything an ICE can do with the exception of range.
I do agree that none of the touted solutions are ready to go right now. So let's think in terms of 10 years. With that time frame in mind what direction should we take to achieve maximum benefits. I really don't think that its ethanol. In fact I see it as an expensive wrong turn on the path to the ultimate destination.
So you want us to continue to ignore solutions that are real
No but I don't want to hear lies about so called solutions that are not workable. As a solution E85 is unworkable now or in the foreseeable future. So instead of lying to make a unworkable solution sound good we should be looking at workable solutions. My tax money shouldn't be spent propping up crap but should be working towards a solution that actually works.
Electric autoa have been a joke so far
Electric cars have come a long way over the past few years and can even out accelerate most ICE's and is a great solution as a commuter car.
The hybrids did not save us any oil,
Actually most Hybrids do save gas.
Are our suburbs in the throes of death!
Not sure where you are but here around Chicago the suburbs are booming. Many of then have grown 15-20% since 2000, while the city of Chicago has lost some population since 2000.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Diesenol is NOT a blend of diesel fuel and gasoline. Diesenol is a blend of ethanol and a specially engineered proprietary chemical. The chemical additive was designed specifically to provide combustion and to maintain the integrity of the injector system. Diesenol has better cold start characteristics than conventional diesel fuel and does not require any special equipment or fittings. Diesenol is designed to combust at the same compression as ordinary diesel fuel. Field tests of Diesenol showed none of the problems associated with "E95": Trucks running on Diesenol had more power, better torque curves and no injector failures. The test vehicles were city buses and trailer trucks, each of which logged over 400,000 Kilometers of use with Diesenol fuel.
I think that we are in agreement that EVs will ultimately be the mode of transportation. If we need an intermediate step I also agree that diesel, in whatever form, makes more sense than ethanol. It seems to me that the biggest supporters of ethanol all have a farming interest.
I would not oppose any effort to take a big chunk of the Great Plains' irrigated corn and turn it over to dryland switchgrass. And more buffalo. We'd save a bundle in subsidies that could be moved over into other, more progressive fuel incentives.
GULP! Of course, ethanol from corn is unacceptable. I meant to say simply "ethanol" -- as ethanol from other crops or plants that are much easier on our environment.
Anything is better than corn. We can get ethanol from just about anything we grow. The difference is that corn has a powerful lobby behind it. The Idaho cellulose plant, if and when it gets online, will make ethanol from barley straw. Hemp would be great, but it's illegal. There is an unknown grass known as miscanthus, which has been called "switchgrass on steroids." Other crops -- perhaps I should have said "plants" -- include fast-growing poplar trees, sugar beets, canola and others. Then, too, there's landfill waste, livestock waste and other options as yet not fully developed.
None of this is a defense of ethanol. All the talk (from pro-ethanol people) is how it "burns cleaner," etc. Greater attention should be paid to reducing or eliminating the environmental degradation that occurs earlier in the entire process. If that isn't done, ethanol has no future.
I believe conservation, deterrents to consumption and public transportation are underrated in our fuel discussion. Certainly, we need to develop a fuel, or fuels, for the future, but we can ease our pain right now -- few people have the courage to talk about it, though.
Meanwhile, here's a fresh look at the pollution that ethanol plants create:
According to the USDA, corn plantings are down 5 percent this year because of the skyrocketing costs of natural gas, which is used to make nitrate fertilizer.
That may be the case right now because we still grow a huge surplus of corn that gets exported. If ethanol production triples by 2015, which is projected, there will no longer be a surplus without expanding corn production.
Then something's gotta give here. If government mandates so much ethanol production but farmers, even with subsidies, lose big time because of corn inputs ...
Brazil went through this in the 1980s. They built many cars to run on ethanol. Two things happened. Sugar became more valuable than ethanol and oil got cheap again. Ethanol plants closed and many people were stuck with cars and no ethanol. I realize the cars here are flex fuel so that won't happen. We also shut down ethanol plants built in the 1980s when MTBE became the designer additive of choice. This whole thing is reminiscent of the 1930s when the rage was to build dams for cheap electricity. Now some have been demolished and others are considered bad environmentally. If the Energy bill had made provision to look into economical ways to produce ethanol. I would say good decision. That would mean self sustaining, not subsidized into perpetuity. So far all it has done is raise the price of gas for most of the USA.
Anything is better than corn. We can get ethanol from just about anything we grow.
The problem is that almost anything we can make ethanol is not good. Soybeans provide less ethanol per acre than corn, Sugar is a very water intensive crop that cannot be grown in most of the US, you can't make ethanol out of switchgrass at this point and maybe 10 years or more before thats feesable. Very few things appear feesable. on a very large scale program for ethanol. I just don't know whats good for the huge large scale use to provide the ethanol for us to wean us off of forgein oil.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"Based on the vast majority of research and analysis, the department believes that the energy delivered by ethanol is greater than the fossil energy put into its production."
I would think they would have scientific proof, and know before they start throwing out mandates that we all have to live with and pay for.
Prof. Pimentel defended his work in an interview. "I don't see how you could or should eliminate the labor of the farmer," he said. "He eats, sleeps, uses the highways, depends on the police force, fireman, and so forth."
How many are illegal working to produce the corn. Maybe that is why the pro ethanol faction do not want scientific studies on the true cost of ethanol.
It can be disorienting to discover that reputable researchers can so seriously disagree on a single number. In an article last month, the Toledo Blade counted studies, as if that might help settle things. The newspaper noted Prof. Pimentel's work, and added, "Five other researchers have done studies and agree. Thirteen other studies, including one paid for by the Department of Energy, show the opposite."
the elder jose said E10 is cheaper than "E0" unleaded. i suspect it's only true in/near the corn-husker states, not on east or west coast. also i think it's pretty clear ethanol is part of the solution. biodiesel too. bring it!
Please leave the personal confrontations and comments at the door here. If you can't disagree about somehting here without including little personal barbs, then don't make the post.
The forums are not a place to fight your personal battles.
I tend to find that pure gas is cheaper than E10 here in the midwest. But seeing that pure gas is never sold in highly urbanized areas it might be due to taxes, but then again maybe not.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
GM also spent a fortune manufacturing their greatest debacle -- the Diesel. They lost many loyal owners forever on that disaster. What a shame, diesels were terribly slow then and the GM screwups just killed any interest in the auto diesel market...is there any renewed interest? Only time will tell...if we ever get an auto diesel engine approved in the next few years.
Gee, I gassed up yesterday and E10 89 Octane fuel which was 10 cents a gallon cheaper than straight 87 Octane gasoline. Medium grade is the E10 mix. Perhaps your station was just skimming extra profit!
Even if E10 carried a 5% lower mileage, it would amount to:
Highway mileage: 35MPG regular gas, 33.25MPG E10 Gas Urban Mileage: 25MPG regular gas, 23.75MPG E10 Gas
Even if you have an auto that givs you 20MPG, then E10 will only cut 1MPG off the mileage -- for 10 cents a gallon less.
E10 mileage differences are basically unnoticed to any average driver.
The reduced cost of E10 negates any regular gas advantage. In a state that still supplies non-E10 89 Octane gas, then the price differential is at least 20 cents a gallon higher than E10 89 Octane fuel.
E85 and E10 are not going away as they are today's solutions being promulgated today. The other renewable options are still many years away, however, E10 and E85 are here NOW. Remember that the goal is to wean ourselves off the oil cartels dictators price fixing. It is a national policy.
No, they aren't. There isn't an E85 pump anywhere near me, and my car can't run on it, anyway. Most Americans are in the same boat that I'm in, and likely will be for some time to come unless an aggressive effort is made to change it.
None of these solutions are here NOW. (And putting it in capital letters repeatedly through the thread doesn't change the reality.) So please, stop claiming that it is ready to go when it clearly isn't, otherwise we'd already be using it in massive quantities across the US.
I agree. It is doubtful that E85 is available to 1% of the Nation. Who knows what percentage they are mixing in our gas here in CA. It is mandated so I imagine it is something like 7% ethanol. I don't see any difference in performance or mileage, only the higher price we are now paying on the West Coast. Even Seattle is getting dinged as bad as So. CA. Thanks to all the Mega farmers in the Midwest we are getting the Heart land shaft.
Uh no, you cannot get pure gas anywhere near Chicago because the clowns in DC mandated that E10 be used. I have to go about 30 miles away where I can get the cheaper pure gas. I know few, if any, places that sell both pure gas and E10 in the same grade.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
gagrice maybe you don't see an mpg drop because your fuel has been oxygenated for 13 years with MTBE. before RFG1/MTBE in california, i had a 55 mile highway/mountain commute and my 92 civic EX mpg dropped from over 40mpg to 28 mpg. 30% !
That is very possible. I have only used CA gas in my vehicles. I remember back I had about a 1 MPG drop in mileage with my Suburban. I don't remember the year. It always seemed to do better when I filled it in Nevada or AZ. It is harder to tell on a vehicle that only gets 14/18 city/Hwy. It don't sound like the Civic liked that stuff at all. Maybe that is why Toyota and Honda are dragging their feet on building FFVs.
I know when they mandated MTBE in Alaska it caused real problems in the winter. It raised the ice fog levels in Anchorage and Fairbanks. I think they got a waver on that crap. People were getting sick from the fumes as it was held down close to the ground when it was very cold. Not sure if ethanol does the same thing. I imagine ethanol would be evaporated before they could get it trucked to Alaska. I know my tanker was full when I left Iowa.
I an a bit confused gagrice, on one forum you state that you own a new Chevy Hybrid and on another a new Jeep liberty diesel..do you have a third and fourth auto to comment about? ....chuckle!
Now back to the facts: I imagine ethanol would be evaporated before they could get it trucked to Alaska. by gagrice
Executive Order 13149 Red, White, and Blue...and Green The federal fleet has a new driver for using alternative fuel in its alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs). It's called Executive Order 13149, Greening the Government Through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency, and its arrival could not be more timely. Announced by President Clinton on Earth Day, as gasoline and diesel prices continued to soar, the new Executive Order is designed to not only increase the use of alternative fuel by federal agencies but also to increase the use of fuel efficient vehicles in the federal fleet. The EPAct mandate for federal fleet AFV acquisitions remains unaffected by the new order-in model year 2000 and beyond, AFVs are to constitute 75% of covered federal fleet vehicle purchases. What is different, however, is the emphasis on actual use of alternative fuel, rather than vehicle purchases. The new order directs federal agency fleets to use alternative fuel to meet a majority (at least 51%) of the vehicles' fuel needs. It also requires agencies to reduce their overall petroleum consumption by at least 20% over the next five years. A 20% reduction in petroleum use in just five years may seem challenging, but the Executive Order provides agencies with the flexibility to develop appropriate strategies to achieve the goal. Each agency may decide for itself whether or not to rely more heavily upon petroleum replacement strategies, like increasing the use of alternative fuels and AFVs, or petroleum displacement strategies, such as purchasing fuel efficient hybrid vehicles, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and implementing other energy efficient practices. A combination of petroleum replacement and displacement strategies will be needed to achieve a 20% reduction, but each agency may develop a plan specific to its needs and abilities.
Wal-Mart Pushing E85?This would be a genius move on Wal-Mart's part. A stroke of absolute brilliance.
Wal-Mart May Start Pumping Ethanol, Retail Giant Owns And Operates 383 Gas Stations In U.S. - CBS News(AP) Wal-Mart Stores Inc. may offer ethanol made from corn at its 383 U.S. gas stations, a company spokesman said Wednesday.
Wal-Mart stressed it is not ready yet to make any announcements, but corn growers said Wal-Mart's entry into a market now mainly made up of scattered independent gas stations would be a significant boost to a budding new fuel industry.
"Everyone wants to be the second person to do it," said Rhea Bozic, Northeast coordinator for the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition. But she added that with more car makers producing flexible-fuel vehicles, the word about E85 is getting out and a number of production plants are currently being planned in the Northeast. In fact, an argument in ethanol's favor is that it offers economic opportunity to depressed rural areas such as upstate New York. Northeast Biofuels, for example, plans to start producing ethanol in 2008 in partnership with a Canadian company in an old Miller Brewing Plant in Fulton, N.Y. And Empire Biofuels, which is associated with the New York Corn Growers Association, is in the permitting stage for an ethanol plant. Executive Committee member Brian Manktelow, a grain farmer in Lyons, N.Y., said the company plans to build a plant capable of producing 50 million gallons a year. "We plan to use as much corn as possible from New York state," he said, adding he hoped the plant would be up and running by late 2007. Because the plan was still seeking site approval, he declined to give additional details, including its proposed location.
He said the plan met two needs: first, by providing a market for local farmers' corn, and second, by helping to stabilize fuel prices. "Fuel prices are killing us," he said. "They're terrible high."
As an aside: Hemp would be great, but it's illegal.
Not in Canada, Canada has leaglized the growing of hemp (marijuana)and has become the the largest supplier of marijuana to the United States. This of course has caused much concern in Congress and the DEA. However, this would solve Canada's hemp problem and give them Ethanol in turn ...what say you?
I have been reading articles that Biodiesel has a very limited "shelf life" which causes lower and lower mileage as the age of the Biodiesel increases. It must be thrown away if it is not used within six months. What a boondoggle if this is true!
Could we store it in pressurized containers to hold it's energy quotient? Is this true and wouldn't this be the death sound of Biodiesel?
Ford posed over 105,000 questions to customers over a six week period through Customersaskford.com, a Web-enabled tool to answer customer inquiries.
"Basically, there is a lot of confusion out there regarding E85," said Brian McMaster, project manager, Content Governance Center Organization. "What I'm basically saying with the study is that there are some significant information gaps."
One of the most frequent questions from customers is whether or not their vehicle is E85 capable or not. The eighth digit of its vehicle identification number (VIN) reveals if it is E85 capable, according to McMaster.
Customers can visit www.customersaskford.com and type in "VIN decode" or visit federal Web site www.e85fuel.com/information/ford.php to have their VIN number decoded.
McMaster compares this confusion to the late 1970s when the industry switched from leaded to unleaded gasoline. Automakers offered different sizes of gas tank nozzles -- one smaller than the other -- to prevent consumers from inadvertently putting the wrong fuel in their tanks.Another misconception found through the study was that customers believe that E85 ethanol fuel provides better gas mileage.
"Because people believe that the green strategy is about being efficient, which it is in the larger picture. But E85, even though it's cheaper, gets you between 20 and 30 percent less fuel economy," said McMaster. "So, we've got to be very careful about how we manage the whole message."
McMaster recently presented the findings to the cross-functional Ethanol Team committee, which looks at Ford's ethanol policy.
Benefits of E85 E85 has several benefits as a renewable-based fuel. According to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the average vehicle on the road today, using gasoline, emits more than 600 pounds of pollution in the air each year. E85 helps reduce greenhouse gas and tailpipe emissions while supporting the economy and reducing our need for overseas oil imports. Production and use of E85 results in a nearly 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Many major U.S. cities suffer from unhealthy levels of smog (ground-level ozone). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that high-blend ethanol fuels can significantly reduce harmful exhaust emissions such as carbon monoxide (-40%) and smog-forming pollutants (-15%). E85 has the highest oxygen content of any fuel available today, allowing it to burn more completely (cleaner) than conventional gasoline. E85 contains 80% less gum-forming compounds, like the olefins found in gasoline.
E85 Benefits E85 is a safe and fully approved fuel made from 85% ethyl alcohol (ethanol) and just 15% petroleum. Use of E85 is approved by all flexible fuel vehicle manufacturers. Ethanol is renewable. Illinois ethanol is made from starch found in corn and other starch byproducts. E85 reduces demand for oil imported from the Middle East and other politically unstable regions. This dependence seriously impacts our national security and our economy. E85 has a 105 octane rating and provides a boost in engine horsepower. It burns cooler than gasoline and helps keep engines clean. E85 reduces greenhouse gas emissions and ozone-forming pollution. Ethanol is less toxic. Gasoline contains compounds like benzene, toluene, and xylene. Use of E85 reduces the release of these chemicals into our environment. Ethanol degrades quickly in water-this reduces the threat from gasoline spills and leaks. E85 is typically priced lower than gasoline. Increased performance, lower price and environmental & national security benefits will outweigh the slight fuel economy loss associated with FFVs using E85.
Improving Life, One Breath at a Time American Lung Association of Illinois
I think the evaporating might have been a joke. I doubt Canada would allow us to truck ethanol across their country. Alcohol does evaporate much faster than gasoline or diesel.
Yes, my main vehicle is a 2005 GMC Sierra Hybrid. I just sold a 2005 Passat diesel and I would not mind owning a Jeep diesel. Preferably a Wrangler for off-roading and a Grand Cherokee size diesel for cross country cruising. I don't not see myself buying any new gas vehicle as I believe it is a waste of our fossil fuel. Diesel and biodiesel are the way to go.
Well, being that most cars in the US can't run on diesel in any form, and biodiesel is still an experimental fuel, I don't see how anyone can claim that biodiesel is the way to go right now. It has potential, but it isn't here yet.
In any case, I find it amusing that you rail on against using alcohol-based fuels when alcohol is a primary ingredient in the production of biodiesel. Will it upset you if ADM makes a profit from the production of biodiesel?
It is not as experimental as ethanol. It is used in many forms by millions around the world. I is a direct replacement for diesel. How is that experimental. It has limitations for sure. They are well known and well documented. South Dakota farmers have used B20 in their trucks and tractors for many years. In many ways it is superior to # 2 diesel. It is far more available on the West Coast in commercial stations, than E85.
My complaint with ethanol is not the product but the source, CORN. It is not good for the land the way it is grown for use as ethanol. It also takes more fossil fuel to grow than is gained back as ethanol. That is well researched and documented also.
Instead of criticizing the rollout of E85 and FFVs, do something positive, get involved with your state department that controls Ethanol availability (you have Ethanol in your state NOW replacing the cancer-causing MTBF) and encourage your auto dealer's FFV models...they are available NOW.
"...do not ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country."
That's a value judgment of your part. There are millions of Brazilians using ethanol today, while biodiesel refining is a slow process that helps to limit its production. (And yes, it requires alcohol to be refined.)
If you have some data showing the proportion of diesel fuel that is comprised of biodiesel, I'd like to see it. And given that diesel demand in the US is as low as it is for passenger, I'd like to see how you'd increase consumer demand for it. (Biodiesel won't do us much good if consumers aren't prepared to buy diesel cars that have been modified to use it.)
My complaint with ethanol is not the product but the source, CORN.
Yet you ignore the other forms of plant matter that could be used to produce it, while simultaneously ignoring that similar dynamics create downsides to the production of biodiesel.
It also takes more fossil fuel to grow than is gained back as ethanol.
The studies I've seen say the opposite.
And it takes petroleum to run the tractors that harvest the plants that create the vegetable oil needed for biodiesel. Without comparing the resource needs of both, you can't possibly favor one over the other.
Without comparing the resource needs of both, you can't possibly favor one over the other
I have, have you? I have also been the one that posted the most up to date information on biomass ethanol. It was ignored in favor of just pushing corn ethanol NOW. Corn based ethanol is bad for the environment. Companies like Pacific Biodiesel of Hawaii are producing & selling biodiesel at a profit. That was before any subsidies were offered. Maybe you should start there in your research of biodiesel.
Pacific Biodiesel, Inc. was born in 1996 as the answer to grave concerns over potential environmental and health problems resulting from restaurant grease clogging the Central Maui Landfill. Robert King, owner of King Diesel on Maui, who was contracted to maintain the generators at the Landfill, decided to do something about it.
There are millions of Brazilians using ethanol today
Last I read we have passed up Brazil as the number one producer of ethanol. And it is still less than 1% of our need. My question, at what cost to our environment? You also leave out the fact that Sugar cane produces over twice the ethanol of corn, for energy expended.
You also leave out the fact that Sugar cane produces over twice the ethanol of corn, for energy expended.
I didn't leave it out -- if anything, I'm the one here who is trying to get you to look at ethanol made from other biomass. It isn't an either-or situation as you like to paint it.
Last I read we have passed up Brazil as the number one producer of ethanol. And it is still less than 1% of our need.
And how much biodiesel are we producing? We're not making much of that, either.
Again, I go back to my earlier point: Finding flaws in one technology does not make the other one preferable. Your continuous spin of one product while simultaneously attacking the other is just dishonest, because you don't apply equal scrutiny to both.
Let's face it, for any of these solutions to work, there are a few key success factors:
A. Consumer acceptance/ adoption B. Vehicles that use the technology C. The ability to produce and distribute sufficient quantities of fuel to operate those vehicles
So far, neither FFV nor biodiesel-compatiable vehicles are in wide distribution in the US, so Point B has yet to happen.
Nor is the fuel in wide distribution, nor easily producable in large quantities. So Point C is also absent.
Of the two fuels, I'd say that re: Point A, ethanol has a slight edge for potential in the US market, as consumers are more inclined to use gas (which is compatable with ethanol) with diesel (which Americans tend to dislike.) But in any case, consumers would need to buy FFV vehicles and have the fuel available for adoption to go forward.
Personally, I could see a situation in which we end up with cars running on FFV and diesel trucks running on biodiesel. In both cases, the problem of producing the fuel in large quantities has to be solved, and the current distribution system (dominated by oil companies and their retailers) needs to have incentives to sell it for any of them to ultimately work.
My theory is that the price of oil alone is not sufficient to motivate a solution, because of the distribution chain -- the current sellers of fuel need to be able to make a profit from it for it to work for them. A practical solution would probably require enough R&D to sort out this production problem, followed by the oil companies getting into the game so that they can make a profit while using their distribution networks to sell it.
That problem has not (yet) been solved, and neither alternative will be viable on a massive scale unless and until it is. Until then, it's all talk and posturing, nothing more.
I'm the one here who is trying to get you to look at ethanol made from other biomass.
Do you even bother to read what others post? I have posted several articles on ethanol from biomass. You should look back and read them. Yes ethanol from BIOMASS is a good idea. Ethanol from CORN is a bad idea.
Your continuous spin of one product while simultaneously attacking the other is just dishonest, because you don't apply equal scrutiny to both.
And again I say you are not following the threads very well. I admit I like diesel better than gas for the simple reason it is more bang for the buck in a car or truck. So that means I would lean toward an alternative to fossil fuel diesel, which is biodiesel.
Next point. No one is forcing anyone to use biodiesel in any way shape or form. Ethanol on the other hand is being shoved down our tanks like it or not. If ethanol was proven to be all, the flowery speeches of late say it is. Then I would not be complaining. Simple fact is ethanol is a direct result of well placed money by very wealthy companies via very shrewd lobbyists. Ethanol deserves to be berated. It is a poor substitute for gasoline.
Plus it is going to raise the price of bacon.
Explosive growth in U.S. ethanol production has a potential downside for hog feeders: higher-priced corn that could cut into producers' profits.
Consumers could be affected, too, by higher prices at the meat counter, market analysts predicted Friday.
have, have you? I have also been the one that posted the most up to date information on biomass ethanol. It was ignored in favor of just pushing corn ethanol NOW. Corn based ethanol is bad for the environment
Whether Ethanol is good or not is really a moot point...it is the law of the land. Now we all have to get behind the implementation instead of just re-repeating negative myths and falsehoods.
Please do NOT turn this into a personal beef. Let's drop the comments about each other NOW and stick to the topic please. If you disagree on something, that's OK. But it is not OK to use that as an excuse to make this about each other instead of the topic.
it is the law of the land. Now we all have to get behind the implementation
Why? Usually when the lawmakers make bad decisions we vote them out of office. Or that is the way it is supposed to work. The same bunch mandated MTBE. Maybe we should have kept it also.
Your claim is that all the very same lawmakers are still in office and that no other external factors have changed for over a decade. Wow! Talking about a sad attempt to spread another myth and falsehood.
Yes Rocky, that is the only public station in the state of CA, that sells E85. Willie Nelson did his Bio-Willie kick-off from that station in February. Actually it is the only place the West Coast, that a private citizen can buy E85 from Mexico to the Canadian border. So a FFV in this part of the USA is a waste.
Yes most of the ones that would push such ignorance have been in office Waaaay toooo long. If we had term limits this good old boy legislation would not exist.
Explosive growth in U.S. ethanol production has a potential downside for hog feeders: higher-priced corn that could cut into producers' profits.
Consumers could be affected, too, by higher prices at the meat counter, market analysts predicted Friday.
Raise corn for hogs not Fords.
Hey, this is really good, sowee. sowee, sowee! Sorry piggys, I just couldn't resist hamming it up...chuckle! Wow, are we ever off topic, but I thought it was all about compaining about the po'k-barrel? Henny Penny, the sky is falling; We are going to have a shortage of hogjowls, pigsfeet, bacon, ham, po'k chops, sausage gravy, lard, lye so'p, chittlins....!!!!! Not to mention about the shortage of head cheeze and pig's o'sters....chuckle! That bad, bad, ol ethanol...hahahaha! Durn Revenoors! Com on Maizie, po' me a quart and fill my peach jar!
Comments
I disagree. GM spent over 1 billion dollars developing the EV1. IMO, it was one of their greatest achievements. They now found themselves somewhat in the position of the oncologist that discovered a pill that could cure cancer. Maybe not that dramatic but along the same lines. I do agree that one of the obstacles that EVs need to overcome is the perception as glorified golf carts. That is easily doable. We love performance and right now an EV can excede anything an ICE can do with the exception of range.
I do agree that none of the touted solutions are ready to go right now. So let's think in terms of 10 years. With that time frame in mind what direction should we take to achieve maximum benefits. I really don't think that its ethanol. In fact I see it as an expensive wrong turn on the path to the ultimate destination.
No but I don't want to hear lies about so called solutions that are not workable. As a solution E85 is unworkable now or in the foreseeable future. So instead of lying to make a unworkable solution sound good we should be looking at workable solutions. My tax money shouldn't be spent propping up crap but should be working towards a solution that actually works.
Electric autoa have been a joke so far
Electric cars have come a long way over the past few years and can even out accelerate most ICE's and is a great solution as a commuter car.
The hybrids did not save us any oil,
Actually most Hybrids do save gas.
Are our suburbs in the throes of death!
Not sure where you are but here around Chicago the suburbs are booming. Many of then have grown 15-20% since 2000, while the city of Chicago has lost some population since 2000.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
None of this is a defense of ethanol. All the talk (from pro-ethanol people) is how it "burns cleaner," etc. Greater attention should be paid to reducing or eliminating the environmental degradation that occurs earlier in the entire process. If that isn't done, ethanol has no future.
I believe conservation, deterrents to consumption and public transportation are underrated in our fuel discussion. Certainly, we need to develop a fuel, or fuels, for the future, but we can ease our pain right now -- few people have the courage to talk about it, though.
Meanwhile, here's a fresh look at the pollution that ethanol plants create:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13646
That may be the case right now because we still grow a huge surplus of corn that gets exported. If ethanol production triples by 2015, which is projected, there will no longer be a surplus without expanding corn production.
Then something's gotta give here. If government mandates so much ethanol production but farmers, even with subsidies, lose big time because of corn inputs ...
Brazil went through this in the 1980s. They built many cars to run on ethanol. Two things happened. Sugar became more valuable than ethanol and oil got cheap again. Ethanol plants closed and many people were stuck with cars and no ethanol. I realize the cars here are flex fuel so that won't happen. We also shut down ethanol plants built in the 1980s when MTBE became the designer additive of choice. This whole thing is reminiscent of the 1930s when the rage was to build dams for cheap electricity. Now some have been demolished and others are considered bad environmentally. If the Energy bill had made provision to look into economical ways to produce ethanol. I would say good decision. That would mean self sustaining, not subsidized into perpetuity. So far all it has done is raise the price of gas for most of the USA.
The problem is that almost anything we can make ethanol is not good. Soybeans provide less ethanol per acre than corn, Sugar is a very water intensive crop that cannot be grown in most of the US, you can't make ethanol out of switchgrass at this point and maybe 10 years or more before thats feesable. Very few things appear feesable. on a very large scale program for ethanol. I just don't know whats good for the huge large scale use to provide the ethanol for us to wean us off of forgein oil.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I would think they would have scientific proof, and know before they start throwing out mandates that we all have to live with and pay for.
Prof. Pimentel defended his work in an interview. "I don't see how you could or should eliminate the labor of the farmer," he said. "He eats, sleeps, uses the highways, depends on the police force, fireman, and so forth."
How many are illegal working to produce the corn. Maybe that is why the pro ethanol faction do not want scientific studies on the true cost of ethanol.
It can be disorienting to discover that reputable researchers can so seriously disagree on a single number. In an article last month, the Toledo Blade counted studies, as if that might help settle things. The newspaper noted Prof. Pimentel's work, and added, "Five other researchers have done studies and agree. Thirteen other studies, including one paid for by the Department of Energy, show the opposite."
WSJ ethanol good or bad?
i suspect it's only true in/near the corn-husker states, not on east or west coast. also i think it's pretty clear ethanol is part of the solution. biodiesel too. bring it!
The forums are not a place to fight your personal battles.
Why should this be different from any other government mandate?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Highway mileage: 35MPG regular gas, 33.25MPG E10 Gas
Urban Mileage: 25MPG regular gas, 23.75MPG E10 Gas
Even if you have an auto that givs you 20MPG, then E10 will only cut 1MPG off the mileage -- for 10 cents a gallon less.
E10 mileage differences are basically unnoticed to any average driver.
The reduced cost of E10 negates any regular gas advantage.
In a state that still supplies non-E10 89 Octane gas, then the price differential is at least 20 cents a gallon higher than E10 89 Octane fuel.
E85 and E10 are not going away as they are today's solutions being promulgated today. The other renewable options are still many years away, however, E10 and E85 are here NOW. Remember that the goal is to wean ourselves off the oil cartels dictators price fixing. It is a national policy.
No, they aren't. There isn't an E85 pump anywhere near me, and my car can't run on it, anyway. Most Americans are in the same boat that I'm in, and likely will be for some time to come unless an aggressive effort is made to change it.
None of these solutions are here NOW. (And putting it in capital letters repeatedly through the thread doesn't change the reality.) So please, stop claiming that it is ready to go when it clearly isn't, otherwise we'd already be using it in massive quantities across the US.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I know when they mandated MTBE in Alaska it caused real problems in the winter. It raised the ice fog levels in Anchorage and Fairbanks. I think they got a waver on that crap. People were getting sick from the fumes as it was held down close to the ground when it was very cold. Not sure if ethanol does the same thing. I imagine ethanol would be evaporated before they could get it trucked to Alaska. I know my tanker was full when I left Iowa.
Now back to the facts:
I imagine ethanol would be evaporated before they could get it trucked to Alaska. by gagrice
Can you cite any references please? ...chuckle!
Red, White, and Blue...and Green
The federal fleet has a new driver for using alternative fuel in its alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs). It's called Executive Order 13149, Greening the Government Through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency, and its arrival could not be more timely. Announced by President Clinton on Earth Day, as gasoline and diesel prices continued to soar, the new Executive Order is designed to not only increase the use of alternative fuel by federal agencies but also to increase the use of fuel efficient vehicles in the federal fleet.
The EPAct mandate for federal fleet AFV acquisitions remains unaffected by the new order-in model year 2000 and beyond, AFVs are to constitute 75% of covered federal fleet vehicle purchases. What is different, however, is the emphasis on actual use of alternative fuel, rather than vehicle purchases. The new order directs federal agency fleets to use alternative fuel to meet a majority (at least 51%) of the vehicles' fuel needs. It also requires agencies to reduce their overall petroleum consumption by at least 20% over the next five years.
A 20% reduction in petroleum use in just five years may seem challenging, but the Executive Order provides agencies with the flexibility to develop appropriate strategies to achieve the goal. Each agency may decide for itself whether or not to rely more heavily upon petroleum replacement strategies, like increasing the use of alternative fuels and AFVs, or petroleum displacement strategies, such as purchasing fuel efficient hybrid vehicles, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and implementing other energy efficient practices. A combination of petroleum replacement and displacement strategies will be needed to achieve a 20% reduction, but each agency may develop a plan specific to its needs and abilities.
Wal-Mart May Start Pumping Ethanol, Retail Giant Owns And Operates 383 Gas Stations In U.S. - CBS News(AP) Wal-Mart Stores Inc. may offer ethanol made from corn at its 383 U.S. gas stations, a company spokesman said Wednesday.
Wal-Mart stressed it is not ready yet to make any announcements, but corn growers said Wal-Mart's entry into a market now mainly made up of scattered independent gas stations would be a significant boost to a budding new fuel industry.
Northeast Biofuels, for example, plans to start producing ethanol in 2008 in partnership with a Canadian company in an old Miller Brewing Plant in Fulton, N.Y. And Empire Biofuels, which is associated with the New York Corn Growers Association, is in the permitting stage for an ethanol plant. Executive Committee member Brian Manktelow, a grain farmer in Lyons, N.Y., said the company plans to build a plant capable of producing 50 million gallons a year.
"We plan to use as much corn as possible from New York state," he said, adding he hoped the plant would be up and running by late 2007. Because the plan was still seeking site approval, he declined to give additional details, including its proposed location.
He said the plan met two needs: first, by providing a market for local farmers' corn, and second, by helping to stabilize fuel prices. "Fuel prices are killing us," he said. "They're terrible high."
Hemp would be great, but it's illegal.
Not in Canada, Canada has leaglized the growing of hemp (marijuana)and has become the the largest supplier of marijuana to the United States. This of course has caused much concern in Congress and the DEA. However, this would solve Canada's hemp problem and give them Ethanol in turn ...what say you?
Could we store it in pressurized containers to hold it's energy quotient? Is this true and wouldn't this be the death sound of Biodiesel?
"Basically, there is a lot of confusion out there regarding E85," said Brian McMaster, project manager, Content Governance Center Organization. "What I'm basically saying with the study is that there are some significant information gaps."
One of the most frequent questions from customers is whether or not their vehicle is E85 capable or not. The eighth digit of its vehicle identification number (VIN) reveals if it is E85 capable, according to McMaster.
Customers can visit www.customersaskford.com and type in "VIN decode" or visit federal Web site www.e85fuel.com/information/ford.php to have their VIN number decoded.
McMaster compares this confusion to the late 1970s when the industry switched from leaded to unleaded gasoline. Automakers offered different sizes of gas tank nozzles -- one smaller than the other -- to prevent consumers from inadvertently putting the wrong fuel in their tanks.Another misconception found through the study was that customers believe that E85 ethanol fuel provides better gas mileage.
"Because people believe that the green strategy is about being efficient, which it is in the larger picture. But E85, even though it's cheaper, gets you between 20 and 30 percent less fuel economy," said McMaster. "So, we've got to be very careful about how we manage the whole message."
McMaster recently presented the findings to the cross-functional Ethanol Team committee, which looks at Ford's ethanol policy.
Source: Ford Motor Company
E85 has several benefits as a renewable-based fuel. According to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the average vehicle on the road today, using gasoline, emits more than 600 pounds of pollution in the air each year. E85 helps reduce greenhouse gas and tailpipe emissions while supporting the economy and reducing our need for overseas oil imports. Production and use of E85 results in a nearly 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Many major U.S. cities suffer from unhealthy levels of smog (ground-level ozone). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that high-blend ethanol fuels can significantly reduce harmful exhaust emissions such as carbon monoxide (-40%) and smog-forming pollutants (-15%).
E85 has the highest oxygen content of any fuel available today, allowing it to burn more completely (cleaner) than conventional gasoline. E85 contains 80% less gum-forming compounds, like the olefins found in gasoline.
E85 Benefits
E85 is a safe and fully approved fuel made from 85% ethyl alcohol (ethanol) and just 15% petroleum. Use of E85 is approved by all flexible fuel vehicle manufacturers.
Ethanol is renewable. Illinois ethanol is made from starch found in corn and other starch byproducts.
E85 reduces demand for oil imported from the Middle East and other politically unstable regions. This dependence seriously impacts our national security and our economy.
E85 has a 105 octane rating and provides a boost in engine horsepower. It burns cooler than gasoline and helps keep engines clean. E85 reduces greenhouse gas emissions and ozone-forming pollution.
Ethanol is less toxic. Gasoline contains compounds like benzene, toluene, and xylene. Use of E85 reduces the release of these chemicals into our environment.
Ethanol degrades quickly in water-this reduces the threat from gasoline spills and leaks.
E85 is typically priced lower than gasoline. Increased performance, lower price and environmental & national security benefits will outweigh the slight fuel economy loss associated with FFVs using E85.
Improving Life, One Breath at a Time
American Lung Association of Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Yes, my main vehicle is a 2005 GMC Sierra Hybrid. I just sold a 2005 Passat diesel and I would not mind owning a Jeep diesel. Preferably a Wrangler for off-roading and a Grand Cherokee size diesel for cross country cruising. I don't not see myself buying any new gas vehicle as I believe it is a waste of our fossil fuel. Diesel and biodiesel are the way to go.
Do you think ethanol has a longer shelf life? It evaporates if not very tightly sealed. It also absorbs moisture from the air.
Any fuel gets old if left unsealed. Gasoline even when sealed loses octane with age.
Well, being that most cars in the US can't run on diesel in any form, and biodiesel is still an experimental fuel, I don't see how anyone can claim that biodiesel is the way to go right now. It has potential, but it isn't here yet.
In any case, I find it amusing that you rail on against using alcohol-based fuels when alcohol is a primary ingredient in the production of biodiesel. Will it upset you if ADM makes a profit from the production of biodiesel?
It is not as experimental as ethanol. It is used in many forms by millions around the world. I is a direct replacement for diesel. How is that experimental. It has limitations for sure. They are well known and well documented. South Dakota farmers have used B20 in their trucks and tractors for many years. In many ways it is superior to # 2 diesel. It is far more available on the West Coast in commercial stations, than E85.
My complaint with ethanol is not the product but the source, CORN. It is not good for the land the way it is grown for use as ethanol. It also takes more fossil fuel to grow than is gained back as ethanol. That is well researched and documented also.
"...do not ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country."
That's a value judgment of your part. There are millions of Brazilians using ethanol today, while biodiesel refining is a slow process that helps to limit its production. (And yes, it requires alcohol to be refined.)
If you have some data showing the proportion of diesel fuel that is comprised of biodiesel, I'd like to see it. And given that diesel demand in the US is as low as it is for passenger, I'd like to see how you'd increase consumer demand for it. (Biodiesel won't do us much good if consumers aren't prepared to buy diesel cars that have been modified to use it.)
My complaint with ethanol is not the product but the source, CORN.
Yet you ignore the other forms of plant matter that could be used to produce it, while simultaneously ignoring that similar dynamics create downsides to the production of biodiesel.
It also takes more fossil fuel to grow than is gained back as ethanol.
The studies I've seen say the opposite.
And it takes petroleum to run the tractors that harvest the plants that create the vegetable oil needed for biodiesel. Without comparing the resource needs of both, you can't possibly favor one over the other.
I have, have you? I have also been the one that posted the most up to date information on biomass ethanol. It was ignored in favor of just pushing corn ethanol NOW. Corn based ethanol is bad for the environment. Companies like Pacific Biodiesel of Hawaii are producing & selling biodiesel at a profit. That was before any subsidies were offered. Maybe you should start there in your research of biodiesel.
Pacific Biodiesel, Inc. was born in 1996 as the answer to grave concerns over potential environmental and health problems resulting from restaurant grease clogging the Central Maui Landfill. Robert King, owner of King Diesel on Maui, who was contracted to maintain the generators at the Landfill, decided to do something about it.
http://www.biodiesel.com/aboutPacBio.htm
Last I read we have passed up Brazil as the number one producer of ethanol. And it is still less than 1% of our need. My question, at what cost to our environment? You also leave out the fact that Sugar cane produces over twice the ethanol of corn, for energy expended.
I didn't leave it out -- if anything, I'm the one here who is trying to get you to look at ethanol made from other biomass. It isn't an either-or situation as you like to paint it.
Last I read we have passed up Brazil as the number one producer of ethanol. And it is still less than 1% of our need.
And how much biodiesel are we producing? We're not making much of that, either.
Again, I go back to my earlier point: Finding flaws in one technology does not make the other one preferable. Your continuous spin of one product while simultaneously attacking the other is just dishonest, because you don't apply equal scrutiny to both.
Let's face it, for any of these solutions to work, there are a few key success factors:
A. Consumer acceptance/ adoption
B. Vehicles that use the technology
C. The ability to produce and distribute sufficient quantities of fuel to operate those vehicles
So far, neither FFV nor biodiesel-compatiable vehicles are in wide distribution in the US, so Point B has yet to happen.
Nor is the fuel in wide distribution, nor easily producable in large quantities. So Point C is also absent.
Of the two fuels, I'd say that re: Point A, ethanol has a slight edge for potential in the US market, as consumers are more inclined to use gas (which is compatable with ethanol) with diesel (which Americans tend to dislike.) But in any case, consumers would need to buy FFV vehicles and have the fuel available for adoption to go forward.
Personally, I could see a situation in which we end up with cars running on FFV and diesel trucks running on biodiesel. In both cases, the problem of producing the fuel in large quantities has to be solved, and the current distribution system (dominated by oil companies and their retailers) needs to have incentives to sell it for any of them to ultimately work.
My theory is that the price of oil alone is not sufficient to motivate a solution, because of the distribution chain -- the current sellers of fuel need to be able to make a profit from it for it to work for them. A practical solution would probably require enough R&D to sort out this production problem, followed by the oil companies getting into the game so that they can make a profit while using their distribution networks to sell it.
That problem has not (yet) been solved, and neither alternative will be viable on a massive scale unless and until it is. Until then, it's all talk and posturing, nothing more.
Do you even bother to read what others post? I have posted several articles on ethanol from biomass. You should look back and read them. Yes ethanol from BIOMASS is a good idea. Ethanol from CORN is a bad idea.
Your continuous spin of one product while simultaneously attacking the other is just dishonest, because you don't apply equal scrutiny to both.
And again I say you are not following the threads very well. I admit I like diesel better than gas for the simple reason it is more bang for the buck in a car or truck. So that means I would lean toward an alternative to fossil fuel diesel, which is biodiesel.
Next point. No one is forcing anyone to use biodiesel in any way shape or form. Ethanol on the other hand is being shoved down our tanks like it or not. If ethanol was proven to be all, the flowery speeches of late say it is. Then I would not be complaining. Simple fact is ethanol is a direct result of well placed money by very wealthy companies via very shrewd lobbyists. Ethanol deserves to be berated. It is a poor substitute for gasoline.
Plus it is going to raise the price of bacon.
Explosive growth in U.S. ethanol production has a potential downside for hog feeders: higher-priced corn that could cut into producers' profits.
Consumers could be affected, too, by higher prices at the meat counter, market analysts predicted Friday.
Raise corn for hogs not Fords.
Whether Ethanol is good or not is really a moot point...it is the law of the land. Now we all have to get behind the implementation instead of just re-repeating negative myths and falsehoods.
Why? Usually when the lawmakers make bad decisions we vote them out of office. Or that is the way it is supposed to work. The same bunch mandated MTBE. Maybe we should have kept it also.
Your claim is that all the very same lawmakers are still in office and that no other external factors have changed for over a decade. Wow! Talking about a sad attempt to spread another myth and falsehood.
JOHN
Guys this is a must read.....
Rocky
Yes most of the ones that would push such ignorance have been in office Waaaay toooo long. If we had term limits this good old boy legislation would not exist.
Explosive growth in U.S. ethanol production has a potential downside for hog feeders: higher-priced corn that could cut into producers' profits.
Consumers could be affected, too, by higher prices at the meat counter, market analysts predicted Friday.
Raise corn for hogs not Fords.
Hey, this is really good, sowee. sowee, sowee! Sorry piggys, I just couldn't resist hamming it up...chuckle! Wow, are we ever off topic, but I thought it was all about compaining about the po'k-barrel? Henny Penny, the sky is falling; We are going to have a shortage of hogjowls, pigsfeet, bacon, ham, po'k chops, sausage gravy, lard, lye so'p, chittlins....!!!!! Not to mention about the shortage of head cheeze and pig's o'sters....chuckle! That bad, bad, ol ethanol...hahahaha! Durn Revenoors!
Com on Maizie, po' me a quart and fill my peach jar!